This invention relates to dental implants intended for insertion in a hole provided in living jawbone for eventual support of artificial teeth. It is illustrated as realized in a cylindrical dental implant having a screw thread or screw threads on its outer surface, but it is not limited to that type of implant, and is applicable to all types of implants which share the general characteristic that while they are fitted into the living jawbone they extend out of it through the overlying gingival into the mouth wherein they support artificial teeth.
The part of a dental implant that is in the living jawbone should have a roughened surface confronting the host bone for bonding with the bone, and the part of the same implant that is exposed in the mouth should have a smooth surface because a rough surface in that location might provide a site where bacteria can attach and proliferate. For hygienic reasons the exposed surfaces of the implant should be smooth, while for osseointegration purposes the surfaces of the implant confronting the host bone should be rough. Experience over many years has taught dentists practicing implantology that approximately eighteen months after an implant has been successfully placed in the jawbone of a patient and is performing its task of supporting artificial dentition, the bone surrounding the implant immediately beneath the overlying gingival tissue will in most cases be found to have receded a small distance, exposing to the soft tissue a portion of the roughened surface of the implant which had been in bone. This phenomenon is illustrated in a book by Branemark, Zarb & Albrektsson entitled “Tissue-Integrated Prostheses” 1985, p56, FIG. 1-46. This event, occurring as it does beneath the gum tissue surrounding an artificial tooth, is not immediately visible. In spite of the most diligent hygienic practice, it presents the danger that bacteria which succeed in penetrating between the tooth and its surrounding tissue may attach themselves to the roughened surface, and there proliferate, and bring about an infection putting the implant and the tooth it supports in danger of failure.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,988,299 an implant is disclosed which has a threaded portion and a smooth neck portion. No reference is made to roughening of the threaded portion or how smooth the neck portion should be. The neck portion is defined by having a diameter between the “core” diameter of the threaded portion and the outer diameter of the threads and it is disclosed to have a curved surface. The neck portion is said to have an axial length exceeding the settlement in bone level and it is intended to avoid exposure of the threads.
The present invention relates to an implant which is roughened to improve osseointegration with the bone but which does not provide a surface which can facilitate infection.
Observations based on practical experience of one of the present inventors over the past ten years or more have revealed that the recession described in the above-mentioned book tends to stop at the level where the implant places a load on the host bone. In a screw-type implant this level is approximately the beginning of the first turn of the screw thread near the gingival end of the implant. However, these observations also indicate that the stopping level is not precisely the same in all cases, and that in some cases the first thread may be exposed. At times, more than one thread is exposed, perhaps up to three threads.
According to the invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings, the portion of the implant which has a roughened surface is limited to that portion which can be expected to remain in contact with the host bone after the expected bone recession has taken place. The head portion of the implant and the immediately-adjacent part of the heretofore roughened portion, including the initial part of the screw threads, are made smooth. Preferably one to three threads will be left smooth, not roughened. Typically, a length of about 3 mm below the top surface of the implant will be left smooth and not roughened with the remainder of the implant. Because the amount of bone that recedes will vary with different patients, one or more smooth threads may remain permanently in the bone along with the roughened threads. Although these smooth threads may not load the bone to the same degree as the roughened threads, nevertheless the smooth threads will still add significantly to the bone loading.
Since the exact amount of bone recession that will occur in a given patient cannot be determined in advance of the event with precision, the invention is useful to minimize the danger of infection from this source, that is, to block the infection. Good hygienic practice will continue to be required of the patient. With the invention, such good practice can be expected to be more fruitful than heretofore.
The invention is described in greater detail with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
The implant 10 has a head portion 12, a neck portion 14 and a main body 16 which is roughened on its outer surface in the region 18. Such implants are normally machined from titanium or a titanium alloy and are smooth, until a portion is roughened to facilitate osseointegration with bone. The head portion 12, the neck portion 14, and a small region 20 of the main body 16 immediately adjacent the neck portion, encompassing the first to third thread turns, are smooth. To achieve this result the portions of the implant intended to remain smooth during and after the roughening procedure may be covered during that procedure. For example, if the roughening procedure includes an acid-etching step or steps, these parts may be covered with a suitable wax prior to immersing the implant in the etching acid. A preferred method of roughening the surface is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,876,453 mentioned above and incorporated by reference herein. The process has two steps, the first being removal of native oxide from titanium by contact with an aqueous hydrofluoric acid solution, followed by etching with a mixture of sulfuric and hydrochloric acids.
When the implant 10 is first installed in a bore prepared for it in a patient's jawbone, the implant is buried in bone up to and including the head portion 12, to the level indicated by line A-A in
According to the invention, that region 20 immediately adjacent to the neck portion 14 of the implant is maintained smooth so that when the remodeling phase is completed, there will be little or no roughened implant surface exposed to the soft tissue under the dental restoration that is supported on the implant. The exact dimensions of the smooth region 20 cannot be precisely established for all cases. A length corresponding to about one turn of the screw thread is suitable for many cases, but up to three threads may be left smooth.
The manner in which the surface of the implant is roughened and the resulting surface topography will now be described. According to one aspect of the present invention, the native oxide layer is removed from the surface of a titanium implant prior to the final treatment of the surface to achieve the desired topography. After the native oxide layer is removed, a further and different treatment of the surface is carried out in the absence of unreacted oxygen to prevent the oxide layer from reforming until after the desired surface topography has been achieved. It has been found that this process permits the production of unique surface conditions that are substantially uniform over the implant surface that is so treated.
Removal of the native oxide layer can be effected by immersing the titanium implant in an aqueous solution of hydrofluoric (HF) acid at room temperature to etch the native oxide at a rate of at least about 100 Angstroms per minute. A preferred concentration for the hydrofluoric acid used in this oxide removal step is 15% HF/H2O. This concentration produces an etch rate of approximately 200-350 Angstroms per minute at room temperature, without agitation, so that a typical native oxide layer having a thickness in the range from about 70 to about 150 Angstroms can be removed in about one-half minute. Other suitable etching solutions for removing the native oxide layer, and their respective etch rates, are:
A 100% HF was found to be difficult to control, and the etch rate was not determined. The preferred 15% HF solution allows substantially complete removal of the native oxide layer with minimum further consumption of the titanium surface after the implant is removed from the solution.
The native oxide layer may be removed by the use of other acids, or by the use of techniques other than acid etching. For example, the Swart et al. article cited above mentions the use of plasma cleaning to remove thin oxides. Regardless of what technique is used, however, it is important to remove substantially all the native oxide from the implant surface that is intended to interface with the living bone, so that the subsequent treatment of that surface produces a substantially uniform surface texture to promote uniform bonding to the living bone. The native oxide layer is preferably removed from substantially the entire bone-interfacing surface of the implant. In the case of screw-type dental implants, the bone-interfacing surface typically includes the entire implant surface beyond a narrow collar region on the side wall of the implant at the gingival end thereof. This narrow collar region preferably includes the first turn of the threaded portion of the implant. It is preferred not to etch the gingival end itself, as well as the narrow collar region, because these portions of the implant are normally fabricated with precise dimensions to match abutting components which are eventually attached to the gingival end of the implant. Moreover, it is preferred to have a smooth surface on that portion of a dental implant that is not embedded in the bone, to minimize the risk of infection.
The treatment that follows removal of the native oxide layer must be different from the treatment that is used to remove the native oxide layer. A relatively aggressive treatment is normally required to remove the oxide layer, and such an aggressive treatment does not produce the desired uniform surface texture in the resulting oxide-free surface. Thus, after the native oxide layer has been removed, the resulting implant surface is immediately rinsed and neutralized to prevent any further attack on the implant surface. The surface is then subjected to the further, and different, treatment to produce a desired uniform, surface texture. For example, the preferred further treatment described below is a relatively mild acid-etching treatment which forms a multitude of fine cone-like structures having relatively uniform, small dimensions. Because of the prior removal of the native oxide layer, even a mild second treatment of the implant surface can produce a substantially uniform effect over substantially the entire bone-interfacing surface of the implant.
Prior to removing the native oxide layer, the oxide-bearing surface may be grit blasted, preferably with grit made of titanium or a dilute titanium alloy. As is taught in the U.S. Patent No. 5,607,480, the use of a grit made of titanium avoids contaminating the surface of a titanium implant. Thus, for a dental implant made of commercially pure (“CP”) titanium, the blasting material may be CP B299 SL grade titanium grit.
The preferred particle size for this grit is in the range from about 10 to about 60 microns (sifted), and the preferred pressure is in the range from about 50 to about 80 psi.
The surface treatment that follows removal of the native oxide layer from the implant surface may take several forms, singly or in combination. The preferred treatment is a second acid etching step, using an etch solution (“Modified Muriaticetch”) consisting of a mixture of two parts by volume sulfuric acid (96% by weight H2 SO4, 4% by weight water) and one part by volume hydrochloric acid (37% by weight HCl, 63% by weight water) at a temperature substantially above room temperature and substantially below the boiling point of the solution, preferably in the range from about 60° C. to about 80° C. This mixture provides a sulfuric acid/hydrochloric acid ratio of about 6:1. This preferred etch solution is controllable, allowing the use of bulk etch times in the range from about 3 to about 10 minutes. This solution also can be prepared without the risk of violent reactions that may result from mixing more concentrated HCl solutions (e.g., 98%) with sulfuric acid. This second etching treatment is preferably carried out in the absence of unreacted oxygen, and before the implant surface has been allowed to re-oxidize, following removal of the native oxide layer. Of course, the implants may be kept in an inert atmosphere or other inert environment between the two etching steps.
The second etching step produces a surface topography that includes many fine projections having a cone-like aspect in the sub-micron size range. Because of the fine roughness of the surface, and the high degree of uniformity of that roughness over the treated surface, the surface topography produced by this process is well suited for osseointegration with adjacent bone. As illustrated by the working examples described below, the final etched surface consists of a substantially uniform array of irregularities having peak-to-valley heights of less than about 10 microns. Substantial numbers of the irregularities are substantially cone-shaped elements having base-to-peak heights in the range from about 0.3 microns to about 1.5 microns. The bases of these cone-shaped elements are substantially round with diameters in the range from about 0.3 microns to about 1.2 microns, and spaced from each other by about 0.3 microns to about 0.75 microns. The SEMs discussed below, and reproduced in the drawings, illustrate the surface topography in more detail.
The acid-etched surface described above also provides a good site for the application of various materials that can promote bonding of the surface to adjacent bone. Examples of such materials are bone-growth-enhancing materials such as bone minerals, bone morphogenic proteins, hydroxyapatite, whitlockite, and medicaments. These materials are preferably applied to the etched surface in the form of fine particles which become entrapped on and between the small cone-like structures. The bone-growth-enhancing materials are preferably applied in the absence of oxygen, e.g., using an inert atmosphere.
The roughness of the surface to which these materials are applied enhances the adherence of the applied material to the titanium implant. The uniformity of the rough surface enhances the uniformity of the distribution of the applied material, particularly when the material is applied as small discrete particles or as a very thin film.
A preferred natural bone mineral material for application to the etched surface is the mineral that is commercially available under the registered trademark “BIO-OSS”. This material is a natural bone mineral obtained from bovine bone; it is described as chemically comparable to mineralized human bone with a fine, crystalline biological structure, and able to support osseomtegration of titanium fixtures.
The invention will be further understood by reference to the following examples, which are intended to be illustrative and not limiting:
A batch of 30 screw-type cylindrical implants made of CP titanium were grit blasted using particles of CP B299 SL grade titanium grit having particle sizes ranging from 10 to 45 microns, at a pressure of 60 to 80 psi. After grit-blasting, native oxide layer was removed from the implant surfaces by placing 4 implants in 100 ml. of a 15% solution of HF in water at room temperature for 30 seconds. The implants were then removed from the acid, neutralized in a solution of baking soda, and placed in 150 ml. of “Modified Muriaticetch” (described above) at room temperature for 3 minutes. The implants were then removed from the acid, neutralized, rinsed and cleaned. All samples displayed very similar surface topographies and a high level of etch uniformity over the surface, when compared with each other in SEM evaluations. Consistency in the surface features (peaks and valleys) was also observed. The SEMs in
The same degree of uniformity was found in all the samples, and from sample to sample, at magnifications of 2,000 and 20,000, as compared with similar samples subjected to bulk etching without prior removal of the native oxide, as described in EXAMPLE NO. 2 below.
Four of the implants that had been grit blasted as described in EXAMPLE NO. 1 above were placed in 150 ml. of “Modified Muriaticetch” for 10 minutes. The implants were then removed, neutralized, rinsed and cleaned. SEM photographs taken at magnifications of 2,000 and 20,000 showed that the bulk etch solution failed to remove the native oxide layer after 10 minutes in the etch solution. The failure to remove the native oxide layer (100-150 Angstrom units thick) resulted in a non-uniformly etched surface, as depicted for example in
The procedure of this example is currently preferred for producing commercial implants. A batch of screw-type implants made of CP titanium were immersed in a 15% solution of HF in water at room temperature for 60 seconds to remove the native oxide layer from the implant surfaces. A plastic cap was placed over the top of each implant to protect it from the acid. The implants were then removed from the acid and rinsed in a baking soda solution for 30 seconds with gentle agitation. The implants were then placed in a second solution of baking soda for 30 seconds, again with agitation of the solution; and then the implants were rinsed in deionized water. Next the implants were immersed in another solution of two parts by volume sulfuric acid (96% by weight H2 SO4, 4% by weight water),and one part by volume hydrochloric acid (37% by weight HCl, 63% by weight water) at 70° C. for 5 minutes. The implants were then removed from the acid and rinsed and neutralized by repeating the same steps carried out upon removal of the implants from the HF. All samples displayed very similar surface topographies and a high level of etch uniformity over the surface, when compared with each other in SEM evaluations. Consistency in the surface features (peaks and valleys) was also observed. The SEMs in
The same degree of uniformity was found in all the samples, and from sample to sample, at magnifications of 2,000 and 20,000, as compared with similar samples subjected to bulk etching without prior removal of the native oxide, as described in EXAMPLE NO. 2 above.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/778,503, filed Jan. 3, 1997, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,863,201, which is a complete application claiming the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/009,592, filed Jan. 4, 1996, and which is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/607,903, filed Feb. 27, 1996, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,876,453, which, in turn, claims priority to PCT/US95/15576 and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/351,214, filed Nov. 30, 1994, now abandoned the parent of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/650,594, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,603,338.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3022783 | Tucker, Jr. | Feb 1962 | A |
3605123 | Hahn | Sep 1971 | A |
3767437 | Cruz, Jr. | Oct 1973 | A |
3790507 | Hodosh | Feb 1974 | A |
3855638 | Pilliar | Dec 1974 | A |
3919723 | Heimke et al. | Nov 1975 | A |
3986212 | Sauer | Oct 1976 | A |
3987499 | Scharbach et al. | Oct 1976 | A |
4011602 | Rybicki et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4051598 | Sneer | Oct 1977 | A |
4145764 | Suzuki et al. | Mar 1979 | A |
4146936 | Aoyagi et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
4180910 | Straumann et al. | Jan 1980 | A |
4195409 | Child | Apr 1980 | A |
4199864 | Ashman | Apr 1980 | A |
4223412 | Aoyagi et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4261350 | Branemark et al. | Apr 1981 | A |
4330891 | Branemark et al. | May 1982 | A |
4336618 | Raab | Jun 1982 | A |
4366183 | Ghommidh et al. | Dec 1982 | A |
4406761 | Shimogori et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4530116 | Frey | Jul 1985 | A |
4547157 | Driskell | Oct 1985 | A |
4547327 | Bruins et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
4608052 | Van Kampen et al. | Aug 1986 | A |
4629464 | Takata et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4654314 | Takagi et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
4687675 | Nakano et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4693986 | Vit et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
4702930 | Heide et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4704126 | Baswell et al. | Nov 1987 | A |
4722688 | Lonca | Feb 1988 | A |
4746532 | Suzuki et al. | May 1988 | A |
4818559 | Hama et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4826434 | Krueger | May 1989 | A |
4839215 | Starling | Jun 1989 | A |
4861733 | White | Aug 1989 | A |
4865603 | Noiles | Sep 1989 | A |
4871578 | Adam et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4874434 | Riggs, Jr. | Oct 1989 | A |
4878914 | Miwa et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4882196 | Shimamune et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4908030 | Linkow et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4911953 | Hosonuma et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4919751 | Sumita et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4932868 | Linkow et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4938938 | Ewers et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4944754 | Linkow et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4960646 | Shimamune et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4963145 | Takagi et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4969906 | Kronman | Nov 1990 | A |
4988299 | Branemark | Jan 1991 | A |
5000685 | Brajnovic | Mar 1991 | A |
5030096 | Hurson et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5032552 | Nonami et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5034352 | Vit et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5039546 | Chung et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5071351 | Green et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5108399 | Eitenmuller et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5141576 | Shimamune et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5180564 | Wahl et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5188800 | Green et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5190795 | Culler | Mar 1993 | A |
5195891 | Sulc | Mar 1993 | A |
5199873 | Schulte et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5205745 | Kamiya | Apr 1993 | A |
5205921 | Shirkanzadeh | Apr 1993 | A |
5219361 | von Recum et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5222983 | Schmitz et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5242706 | Cotell et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5258030 | Wolfarth et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5263986 | Noiles et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5279831 | Constantz et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5297963 | Dafatry | Mar 1994 | A |
5306305 | Lee | Apr 1994 | A |
5310464 | Redepenning | May 1994 | A |
5316476 | Krauser | May 1994 | A |
5316477 | Calderon | May 1994 | A |
5324199 | Branemark | Jun 1994 | A |
5344425 | Sawyer | Sep 1994 | A |
5344457 | Pilliar et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5360448 | Thramann | Nov 1994 | A |
5362237 | Chalifoux | Nov 1994 | A |
5366374 | Vlassis | Nov 1994 | A |
5368480 | Balfour et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5368483 | Sutter et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5399090 | Padros-Fradera | Mar 1995 | A |
5405436 | Maurer et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5427754 | Nagata et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5433606 | Niznick et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5441536 | Aoki et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5456723 | Steinemann et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5472734 | Perrotta et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5478237 | Ishizasawa | Dec 1995 | A |
5484286 | Hansson | Jan 1996 | A |
5489210 | Hanosh | Feb 1996 | A |
5496399 | Ison et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5503558 | Clokie | Apr 1996 | A |
5543019 | Lee et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5564923 | Grassi et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5571017 | Niznick | Nov 1996 | A |
5571188 | Ellingsen et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5573401 | Davidson et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5588838 | Hansson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5591029 | Zuest | Jan 1997 | A |
5603338 | Beaty | Feb 1997 | A |
5607480 | Beaty | Mar 1997 | A |
5639237 | Fontenot | Jun 1997 | A |
5816811 | Beaty | Oct 1998 | A |
5863201 | Lazzara et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5876453 | Beaty | Mar 1999 | A |
5989027 | Wagner et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6069295 | Leitao | May 2000 | A |
6491723 | Beaty | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6652765 | Beaty | Nov 2003 | B1 |
7048870 | Ellingsen et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
328 067 | May 1975 | AT |
926552 | May 1973 | CA |
2 313 678 | Oct 1974 | DE |
27 17 615 | Oct 1978 | DE |
202 031 | Nov 1986 | EP |
212 929 | Mar 1987 | EP |
0 213 836 | Nov 1987 | EP |
0 409 810 | Jan 1991 | EP |
455 929 | Jan 1991 | EP |
606 566 | Jul 1994 | EP |
2 289 160 | Oct 1974 | FR |
2 421 595 | Mar 1979 | FR |
834256 | May 1960 | GB |
2045083 | Jan 1984 | GB |
2252501 | Aug 1992 | GB |
1148254 | Jun 1989 | JP |
332 486 | Nov 1971 | SE |
WO 9205745 | Apr 1992 | WO |
WO 9413334 | Jun 1994 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20010004711 A1 | Jun 2001 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60009592 | Jan 1996 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 08778503 | Jan 1997 | US |
Child | 09237605 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 08607903 | Feb 1996 | US |
Child | 08778503 | US | |
Parent | 08351214 | Nov 1994 | US |
Child | 08607903 | US |